On Monday, Brown nominated Leondra R. Kruger, a Yale Law School graduate, to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who left the court in April. If confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, Kruger would be Brown’s third appointee to the state’s highest court in as many years.

“Leondra Kruger is a distinguished lawyer and uncommon student of the law,” Brown said in a press release announcing the appointment. “She has won the respect of eminent jurists, scholars and practitioners alike.”

Born and raised in the Los Angeles area, Kruger has spent the past eight years working in various positions at the U.S. Department of Justice. Since 2013, Kruger has served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, where she has earned high praise from the federal government’s top lawyer.

“Leondra is an extraordinarily talented attorney who has been a leader within the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and Office of the Solicitor General,” U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a written statement on Kruger’s nomination. “Her remarkable judgment, tireless work ethic, and dedication to the highest ideals of public service have marked her as one of the foremost leaders of her profession.”

Brown remaking state Supreme Court

When Brown took office for his second stint as governor, all but one of the seven state Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican governors. With Kruger’s confirmation, Democrats now would hold three seats on the court. One more Brown appointment over the his last term in office would give Democrats a four-member majority.

Earlier this year, Brown nominated Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, a 41-year-old Stanford law professor, to fill the vacancy created by Justice Marvin Baxter. In 2011, Brown tapped UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu, who had been denied a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

If successfully confirmed, Kruger would be Brown’s 10th appointment to the state Supreme Court — more than any other governor in California’s history, according to CalWonk’s Phillip Ung. Kruger would be the only African American currently on the California Supreme Court.

“I am deeply honored by Governor Brown’s nomination,” Kruger said in a press release. “I look forward to returning home to California and, if confirmed, serving the people of California on our state’s highest court.”

Democratic lawmakers were quick to embrace Kruger’s nomination to the position, which pays $225,342 per year.

“This is another outstanding appointment Governor Brown has made to the California Supreme Court,” Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, said in a prepared statement. “I look forward to Ms. Kruger’s voice on the court as all three branches of our government work to ensure justice for all Californians.”

Kruger’s conflict with religious groups

The choice of Kruger is likely to draw the ire of religious groups that have battled with her over First Amendment rights. While at the Solicitor General’s office, Kruger represented the Obama administration in 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School vs. EEOC.

In Hosanna, Kruger argued that federal discrimination laws should be applied to religious organizations. Courts have long recognized a ministerial exception, which exempts religious institutions from anti-discrimination laws in hiring practices. Several justices openly scoffed at Kruger’s arguments to overturn the precedent.

“That’s extraordinary. That’s extraordinary,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in one exchange with Kruger during oral arguments. “We’re talking here about the Free Exercise Clause and about the Establishment Clause, and you say they have no special application.”

A unanimous Supreme Court ultimately upheld the school’s First Amendment right to exercise its religious beliefs.

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the court’s opinion. “But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

Kruger quickly rose through Justice Department ranks

Kruger, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens from 2003 to 2004, worked as an associate at Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP from 2004 to 2006. While teaching at the University of Chicago Law School in 2007, Kruger was tapped to join the Bush administration’s Justice Department, where she quickly rose through the ranks.

“Get used to this name, Leondra Kruger,” the Wall Street Journal’s legal blog advised in 2010. “Say it again: Leondra Kruger. It’s a name in the world of law that you’re likely going to be hearing for years to come.”

At that time, Kruger was promoted to principal deputy solicitor general, a position that is considered the “political deputy” under the solicitor general. A prominent legal blog considered the appointment under Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal “a surprise.” But, Katyal was impressed by Kruger’s legal expertise.

“Leondra Kruger is perhaps the most outstanding lawyer in America right now under the age of 40,” Katyal said of Kruger’s appointment to the California Supreme Court. “She is known for meticulous preparation before her arguments in the United States Supreme Court, her absolute dedication to candor and her unwavering commitment to fairness.”

In 2011, Kruger was honored by the National Law Journal as one of its “Minority 40 Under 40.” She was admitted to the State Bar of California in 2002, according to bar records, but is currently inactive.

Kruger must be confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which consists of Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal Joan Dempsey Klein.

If Kruger is confirmed, she would face a statewide confirmation vote in the 2016 general election.

By Katy Grimes

California employers have been regulated and mandated to the point of ridiculousness — and unprofitability. But a California Supreme Court decision this week finally gives employers a break—while still giving employees a break.

Resolving the increasing uncertainty due to legal hair-splitting by employment lawyers over the scope of an employer’s obligations for meal and break periods, the California Supreme Court ruled this week that an employer’s obligation is only to provide the break periods, but not force employees to take the breaks.

The law states that employees must be provided a 10-minute break within the first five hours of an employee’s shift. And, during an eight-hour shift, employers must provide two 10-minute breaks and a 30-minute meal period.

The decision came down in Brinker Restaurant Corporation vs. Superior Court, and is only one of many class action lawsuits on means and rest breaks pending in California. California’s many trial lawyers have made successful practices of suing California’s diminishing employers.

Brinker Restaurant operates Chili’s and Maggiano’s Little Italy. 

At issue in the state is the rights of employers — those people who stick their necks out, and invest their own money into companies which provide a product or service. These employers hire employees, pay them a wage and provide benefits to produce the product or service.

Attack on employers

But employers in California have been under attack for many years.

In addition to the issue of meals and break periods are the putative overtime laws, and whether employers had to pay overtime after eight hours in a day, or after 40 hours (total) of work in a week. Employers argue that paying overtime after eight hours every day restricts scheduling and production flexibility. Most other states base overtime on the 40-hour work week.

California also does not allow employees to work flexible-schedule weeks, such as four 10-hour days; or three 12-hour days, without paying overtime. Many employees prefer these alternative schedules, and employers find much more production and scheduling flexibility with the alternative schedules.

California’s overtime, and hour and wage laws, are complex and largely appear to be driven by the political party in power.

Overtime was enacted many years ago to compensate employees who were being “overworked” by employers, defined by the government as working employees beyond eight hours in one workday. Overtime law requires employers to pay employees time and a half for working more than eight hours in one day, as well as more than 40 hours in one week. Double-time is paid after 12 hours in one day, and again on the seventh consecutive workday in one week.

In effect through 1997, the old daily overtime rules required only certain industries that had specific wage orders regulating them, to pay overtime daily. Manufacturing and clerical workers were subjected to the daily overtime laws. But construction, mining and logging were not, so they could instead opt to pay daily overtime or defer to the federal standard of paying overtime after 40 hours worked in a workweek.

New law

In 1998, Gov. Pete Wilson signed legislation relieving California’s employers from the state’s daily overtime laws, allowing employers to pay overtime after 40 hours in one week, instead of the daily overtime. Widely hailed as a pro-business move, Wilson’s goal was to give employers and employees more flexibility in production and schedules. Labor union representatives were outraged, and claimed their members would lose income with the overtime change.

Almost immediately, Assemblyman Wally Knox, D-Los Angeles, authored AB60, which was referred to as organized labor’s reaction to Wilson’s elimination of daily overtime. In 1999, Gov. Gray Davis signed AB60, called the “Eight Hour Day Restoration and Workplace Flexibility Act of 1999,” dramatically changing the state’s overtime compensation laws. The act went into effect for most employers on January 1, 2000. However the list of exemptions was long, and included public employees.

The 1999 act’s most dramatic change was the restoration of the daily overtime requirement. Ironically, union employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement were not covered by AB60, nor were public employees.

Federal law, and the vast majority of states, only require that overtime be paid for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. However, California requires that overtime be paid after eight hours work in one workday and after 40 hours work in one workweek.

Along with overtime laws, meal and break periods became regulated. Instead of allowing employees and employers to determine break and meal periods, the government stepped in and overreacted.

Fortunately, the state Supreme Court decision this week brought a modicum of sanity back to the workplace and may put an end to some of the class action lawsuits.

“In a unanimous opinion authored by Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, the court explained that neither state statutes nor the orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods,” the California courts reported.

The court also upheld the 30-minute meal break period “during which the employee is at liberty to come and go as he or she pleases.”  A meal break must be afforded after no more than five hours of work, and a second meal period provided after no more than 10 hours of work.

The court’s opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court is available on the California Courts Web site.